A two-year review of a Cooperative Baptist Fellowship policy banning the employment of gays is wrapping up.

The CBF Governing Board plans to receive the final report of the Illumination Project at a meeting Feb. 8-9 at First Baptist Church in Decatur, Ga. Aaron Weaver, communications director of the 1,800-church Fellowship, said the presentation is tentatively scheduled for Friday afternoon.

The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship will continue to make sexual orientation a consideration in some, but not all, employment decisions with a new hiring policy and implementation plan adopted Feb. 9 by the CBF Governing Board.

There's a link to the 43 page report in the article link. I would suggest reading through the whole report with some thoughtful consideration before making a comment. Baptists who lean in the direction of CBF or self-identify as moderates are always pretty thorough when it comes to their reasoning and thinking processes, and while that sometimes produces lengthy reports full of flowery language and religious talk, this report is quite thorough, gave a lot of consideration to a wide variety of perspectives, and is really concise, to the point, and reflective of reality such as it is within what CBF has become. I think it gives them, for the first time in their history, a sense of identity within which to develop a cooperative ministry as a group, and moves away from simply being "the old, recreated SBC."

You almost have to have a lawyer explain exactly what this means. Clarity isn't a word I'd use to describe it but...not my group anyway. The clearest response I saw was the one where it was said that gay people went from being excluded from CBF hiring to being second class citizens.

I'm not sure how this provides identity to the CBF. Semi-welcoming and affirming?

As far as I've read, I don't think this decision is going to help the CBF much with anyone. Conservatives will feel they've done wrong welcoming any LGBTQ folks and persons who are, or support LGBTQ folks will feel like they are set up to be second class citizens without full access to positions in the CBF. Its a lose lose.

Ed: I need some time to process this, in part that will be by discussing it with some CBF acquaintances in the North East and Central CBF regions, as well as listening to folk at the General Assembly in Dallas.

I have yet to read the full report, however based on the comments I have seen, I would possibly support some type of resistance or opposition response movement.

I disagree. Up to this point, CBF has maintained a policy against hiring anyone who is openly LGBTQ. Rather than looking at who might be affected or offended by a change, they actually looked internally, at their core, not their fringes or their "potential," and their self-examination led to a conclusion that is very consistent with both being Baptist, and with the nature of a group that claims to be a fellowship, not a denomination.

There is a group of individuals and churches within the fellowship that favors a "welcoming and affirming" posture towards the LGBTQ community. For the most part, this group has remained in the fellowship for decades, since the beginning, hasn't gone anywhere, and isn't going anywhere. Those prone to leave because of the hiring policy are long gone, those who have stayed are those who place a higher value on the fellowship's mission and purpose, than on any specific set of "rights" to the jobs it provides. They also seem to be paying more attention to their core constituency of churches, rather than the "contributors" who still have a bigger footprint in the SBC. They claim that most of those churches are really in only because of deference given to some of their members, and if they leave because the hiring policy is more liberal than they like, those members are likely to continue supporting CBF, and they're not out all that much anyway. It looks like they've recognized the fact that they're not going to be the destination for any kind of influx from either the LGBTQ supporting churches, or the SBC supporting churches, and they're doing something to resolve a problem within their own constituency.

I think the LGBTQ community and their supporters in CBF will see this as a positive step. They're intelligent enough to recognize that you don't just make demands and expect deference without compromise. There are individuals and churches who hold a more conservative view, but I think they also value their commitment to the fellowship higher than the value of the hiring policy. I've been a member of a CBF congregation with some LGBTQ members, and a high percentage of the congregation sympathetic, welcoming and affirming who were committed to the fellowship even though it didn't take a "welcoming and affirming" posture, and preferred remaining in CBF rather than joining a welcoming and affirming church of another denomination. Change takes time, and in a Christian group, it moves at the rate of a glacier. Here's a group of Baptists working toward a resolution that they hope won't turn out the way most such situations do, with someone having to leave to keep the peace. I

Sandy wrote:I think the LGBTQ community and their supporters in CBF will see this as a positive step.

Really? I'm already seeing push back from at least one Welcoming and Affirming congregation in a pretty high profile article. I think the LGBTQ folks are likely to see this as almost a slam. You are good enough for supporting roles but not leadership roles.

Sandy wrote:I think the LGBTQ community and their supporters in CBF will see this as a positive step.

Really? I'm already seeing push back from at least one Welcoming and Affirming congregation in a pretty high profile article. I think the LGBTQ folks are likely to see this as almost a slam. You are good enough for supporting roles but not leadership roles.

Ed: Tim, I am curious where is the article in which are you seeing this "push back"?

Sandy wrote:I think the LGBTQ community and their supporters in CBF will see this as a positive step.

Really? I'm already seeing push back from at least one Welcoming and Affirming congregation in a pretty high profile article. I think the LGBTQ folks are likely to see this as almost a slam. You are good enough for supporting roles but not leadership roles.

Prior to this point, the position has been that if you are LGBTQ, you don't get hired at all. If you're going to demand to get everything you want, and take away everything that those who hold a different view want, there's no compromise, it's just a demand. Accepting this required a measured movement by each side, and an acknowledgement that this is something that needs to be worked through, not bulldozed over. I would think that the welcoming and affirming congregations that have remained in CBF, rather than seeing this as a slap in the face, would see it for what it is, an attempt to patiently work through an issue that could be explosively divisive. From a practical standpoint, if the leadership of CBF simply concluded that there is enough Biblical and theological support to exclude LGBTQ persons from any leadership role, there really aren't that many churches who have drawn a line in the sand on that issue to make much of an impact if they stopped their support, if there were any that would do so at this point. Those who would make an issue out of it are already gone. I'd say that the vast majority of churches and supporters of CBF see their support and involvement as being much broader than that single issue, and don't see that as a reason to abandon their support of other causes. But in spite of the risks, because of the nature of those involved in CBF, they are moving ahead with this, carefully, and slowly. The best response that those who are sympathetic to LGBTQ causes could make in this case is to accept it as a movement in the right direction.

Even the liberal mainline denominations whose clerical hierarchy have forced acceptance of LGBTQ ordination and leadership haven't successfully negotiated cooperation and acceptance from those who remain opposed to it on Biblical and doctrinal grounds. They've more or less blown up their unity and their denomination over its forced acceptance. I have a pastor friend in PCUSA whose kids went to school here, who was in this area about 5 years, who tells me that the denomination no longer has the resources to enforce its property rights, or collect the "departure fees" because so many churches are simply joining other denominations wholesale. They haven't even been able to assess how many churches or members they've lost, he estimates at least half, based on what he saw in this area while he was here. Both the ELCA and the Episcopal Church are reporting staggering losses of churches and membership. The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and its whole mission and purpose, are collectively more important than any single interest or agenda, and I think this statement, and their position, is a recognition of who they are, and the basic facts, and a genuine effort to make a way for people to reconsider their perspectives and opinions, and come together in Christ rather than part company in anger.

I enter this one with trepidation because whatever I say will probably be miscast, but I have been closer to this process than probably anyone else on BL, perhaps with the exception of Bruce. I have also had the full information for about three weeks. These are not complete thoughts, but they represent my journey.

First, this is all about a process and not about the result. The process is one of learning to have civil dialogue on difficult issues within CBF. That's the reason this was given the name Illumination Process. The end result could have probably been devised by three people sitting in an office somewhere trying to figure out what to say, but this was a process to attempt respect for all the stakeholders in CBF, both representing the 1,800 or so churches that contribute in some way along with the individuals who contribute who are not part of churches that do. It was about devising a process, not just getting a result.

Second, CBF is an autonomous organization dealing with autonomous churches that are not creedal or forced to copy one another. There is no effort in this either to speak to the churches about what they should do or to speak for the churches cooperating with CBF to the world. CBF speaks only for the organization itself and the organization only.

Third, in the Illumination Process, CBF sought to learn what the churches have said concerning the issues of sexuality. While there are churches that have taken a position endorsing the hiring of LGBTQ personnel, there is almost an equal percentage of churches who have taken a strongly negative position on the employment of those who are LGBTQ within church organizations. At the same time, virtually every church responding to survey questions indicated that they did have one or more active LGBTQ members. However, more than 55% of CBF-related churches have neither had any public conversation regarding sexuality nor have taken any declared positions in this area.

Fourth, the position taken in the 2000 hiring statement was a very limited statement saying that the only absolute prohibition against being hired by CBF would be that the person not be a practicing LGBT individual. In fact, there had never been any statement that the expectation was that a person hired by CBF had to be a Baptist or even needed to be a follower of Christ. Part of the current statement is to rectify the fact that we had never stated that these were to be at the top of our list rather than simply saying that someone could not be gay. Rather than having a knee-jerk reaction to negative press, the new policy is seeking to magnify first an individual's relation with Christ and second to magnify his or her involvement with a CBF-church or partner institution.

Fifth, the division of employees into two categories regarding application of issues like homosexuality was modeled on the statement of the North American Mission Board of the SBC which has such a division of its employees. Also, the Illumination Project studied statement by other Christian groups including Christianity Today and Bread for the World for guidance in their policies.

Sixth, the Illumination Project sought to look at the context of service for CBF Personnel, especially those who serve in overseas assignments in which any change in the orientations of the personnel we are supporting might jeopardize the partnerships in which we are involved, the institutional relationships with other bodies, or the integrity of the witness of CBF personnel. Individual job descriptions will set the parameters of who may and may not be appointed or serve in those contexts.

Seventh, there has been an effort to recognize that not everyone will be happy with any statement made. Those who have a "welcoming and affirming" stance will feel that the positions proposed were too weak and were far too careful to be prophetic. Those who have adopted positions condemning gay marriage or any support for LGBT issues will feel that the positions taken are far too weak in the opposite direction. There is no way of knowing how the churches and individuals with no stated position will respond.

Above everything, this has been about the process followed. Can we model respectful disagreement among CBF churches and committed individuals to offer a way to deal with tough issues? This has been the purpose behind all of this, but to give a loving and Christlike hearing to all sides has been what this effort has been designed to do. Yes, the tectonic plates have moved in some areas. No, it has not been the earthquake for which some had hoped and against which others had fought. The jury is out on how most churches will be responding and how to deal with this. For the past two weeks, I have been on a team of CBF folks talking with stakeholders in the organization and sharing the process. I have received questions, both pointed and challenging, but the majority of those contacts have shown support for the process and hopes that other issues can be dealt with in a careful dialogue. Respect for differences is never easy, but I give thanks for an organization and a process in which they can be shared.

"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

Dave Roberts wrote:I enter this one with trepidation because whatever I say will probably be miscast, but I have been closer to this process than probably anyone else on BL, perhaps with the exception of Bruce. I have also had the full information for about three weeks. These are not complete thoughts, but they represent my journey.

First, this is all about a process and not about the result. The process is one of learning to have civil dialogue on difficult issues within CBF. That's the reason this was given the name Illumination Process. The end result could have probably been devised by three people sitting in an office somewhere trying to figure out what to say, but this was a process to attempt respect for all the stakeholders in CBF, both representing the 1,800 or so churches that contribute in some way along with the individuals who contribute who are not part of churches that do. It was about devising a process, not just getting a result.

Ed: Dave, I am reasonably well acquainted with some members of the committee directly involved in the process who I believe have one major fault that I see reflected throughout the report, that is a willingness to go along to get along. I am not convinced that the basic outline was not in fact written by three people, with the committee struggling to fill in the blanks with"Nice Language. BTW I have now read the full report.

Dave Roberts wrote:Second, CBF is an autonomous organization dealing with autonomous churches that are not creedal or forced to copy one another. There is no effort in this either to speak to the churches about what they should do or to speak for the churches cooperating with CBF to the world. CBF speaks only for the organization itself and the organization only.

Ed: Well said

Dave Roberts wrote:Third, in the Illumination Process, CBF sought to learn what the churches have said concerning the issues of sexuality. While there are churches that have taken a position endorsing the hiring of LGBTQ personnel, there is almost an equal percentage of churches who have taken a strongly negative position on the employment of those who are LGBTQ within church organizations. At the same time, virtually every church responding to survey questions indicated that they did have one or more active LGBTQ members. However, more than 55% of CBF-related churches have neither had any public conversation regarding sexuality nor have taken any declared positions in this area.

Ed: the report does not persuade me that succeeded in its search to learn what the churches believe concerning the issues of sexuality. Good people often have a tendency to go with the flow.

Dave Roberts wrote:Fourth, the position taken in the 2000 hiring statement was a very limited statement saying that the only absolute prohibition against being hired by CBF would be that the person not be a practicing LGBT individual. In fact, there had never been any statement that the expectation was that a person hired by CBF had to be a Baptist or even needed to be a follower of Christ. Part of the current statement is to rectify the fact that we had never stated that these were to be at the top of our list rather than simply saying that someone could not be gay. Rather than having a knee-jerk reaction to negative press, the new policy is seeking to magnify first an individual's relation with Christ and second to magnify his or her involvement with a CBF-church or partner institution.

Ed: I voted for the I 2000 statement and still accept it. Who are you suggesting have had a Knee -Jerk reaction to negative press.

Dave Roberts wrote:Fifth, the division of employees into two categories regarding application of issues like homosexuality was modeled on the statement of the North American Mission Board of the SBC which has such a division of its employees. Also, the Illumination Project studied statement by other Christian groups including Christianity Today and Bread for the World for guidance in their policies.

Ed: Since when does CBF use anything from the SBC as a model?

Dave Roberts wrote:Sixth, the Illumination Project sought to look at the context of service for CBF Personnel, especially those who serve in overseas assignments in which any change in the orientations of the personnel we are supporting might jeopardize the partnerships in which we are involved, the institutional relationships with other bodies, or the integrity of the witness of CBF personnel. Individual job descriptions will set the parameters of who may and may not be appointed or serve in those contexts.

Ed: They would have done well to pay more attention to those in the US who object.

Dave Roberts wrote:Seventh, there has been an effort to recognize that not everyone will be happy with any statement made. Those who have a "welcoming and affirming" stance will feel that the positions proposed were too weak and were far too careful to be prophetic. Those who have adopted positions condemning gay marriage or any support for LGBT issues will feel that the positions taken are far too weak in the opposite direction. There is no way of knowing how the churches and individuals with no stated position will respond.

Ed: So the response to those expected not to be happy is "Let them eat cake"????

Ed, thank you for your considered response. I was not part of the Implementation Study, only one of those asked to help interpret it. The most vocal push-back so far has come from "welcoming and affirming churches" who wanted a blanket endorsement of employing LGBTQ personnel. I have a video interview that I just received. You might find it helpful with some of the distinctions that I may not have been able to as carefully delineate as some of the folks directly in the Illumination Project. https://vimeo.com/255571565

"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

Dave wrote: "Fifth, the division of employees into two categories regarding application of issues like homosexuality was modeled on the statement of the North American Mission Board of the SBC which has such a division of its employees."

William Thornton wrote:Dave wrote: "Fifth, the division of employees into two categories regarding application of issues like homosexuality was modeled on the statement of the North American Mission Board of the SBC which has such a division of its employees."

What is meant here?

NAMB does not require theological or behavioral assent from those not in ministry positions who serve in their offices. In CBF's 2000 statement, the same standards prevailed across all hiring categories.

"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

So, two churches that were fine with supporting CBF when its policy prevented LGBTQ persons from being hired are now going to leave when their perspective is getting consideration, and the organization is beginning to move in their direction will just be counterproductive to further progress. Wasn't there a lot of complaining about churches threatening to leave if the fellowship opened the door to hiring LGBTQ persons on its staff?

Alan Sherouse, the author of the article "Looking for Space to Live Together in the CBF", is being unrealistic and intolerant. He wants to create a space for those who hold a welcoming and affirming position toward LGBTQ persons in the church, but he wants to create it at the expense of those who believe that LGBTQ lifestyles and behavior are, by Biblical interpretation, sinful. He doesn't want those folks to have any space in CBF. But if you force this issue into the organization's structure, and the churches that still have ties to the SBC and are still on the fence are the ones who leave, there won't be a CBF left to hire any LGBTQ persons. Do you win that point, then?

I'm becoming convinced that Baptists, regardless of their stripe, just can't do something like this.

William Thornton wrote:Dave wrote: "Fifth, the division of employees into two categories regarding application of issues like homosexuality was modeled on the statement of the North American Mission Board of the SBC which has such a division of its employees."

What is meant here?

NAMB does not require theological or behavioral assent from those not in ministry positions who serve in their offices. In CBF's 2000 statement, the same standards prevailed across all hiring categories.

Do you have any link or confirmation of this? Can you point me to anything from NAMB?

William Thornton wrote:Do you have any link or confirmation of this? Can you point me to anything from NAMB?

Here is a page of other organization policies including NAMB. If you note in the last item that there are "exempt" and "non-exempt" positions, this is where the application is and is not made to the BFM2K and other requirements. By the way, I didn't see any mention of prohibition on LGBTQ, do you?

North American Mission Board, Southern Baptist Convention • Demonstrates an active prayer life, gives regularly to the work of the church and readily applies scripture to personal and professional situations • Knowledge of NAMB purpose and strategy. Advanced understanding of the Southern Baptist conventions, associations and churches. • Enjoys healthy, affirming relationships with spouse, family, neighbors and friends. Exhibits integrity in professional and personal life. Modest in dress and deportment, and makes a favorable first impression in both bearing and manner… • Advanced understanding of the Southern Baptist Convention, Baptist doctrine, history and polity, and the interrelationships of SBC agencies, state conventions, associations and churches. • Christian Experience: NAMB fills each position with a person who has accepted Jesus Christ as his or her personal Lord and Savior, who lives his or her Christian faith, and who is a participating church member. There is to be evidence of a commitment to Christian discipleship, spiritual growth, and personal evangelism. • Theological Integrity: NAMB exempt staff are to maintain theological convictions consistent with the most current copy of The Baptist Faith and Message as adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). • Church Membership: NAMB exempt staff are to be active members, in good standing, of cooperating Southern Baptist churches.

Baptist General Convention of Texas • Active member in a church supportive of the BGCT during employment and a commitment to Christian principles and teachings both professionally and personally, with an understanding and commitment to Baptist Distinctive.

Christianity Today • Acknowledge agreement with CT’s Mission and Vision Statements, affirm a personal faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and affirm the historic doctrines of the Christian faith as expressed in the Apostles’ Creed

World Vision • World Vision staff share our faith, hope, and Christian values through Christ-like living and caring actions. To this end, the organization as a whole is committed to uphold the Statement of Faith as stated in the Articles of Incorporation

"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

Sandy wrote:So, two churches that were fine with supporting CBF when its policy prevented LGBTQ persons from being hired are now going to leave when their perspective is getting consideration, and the organization is beginning to move in their direction...

Yes, I thought that was interesting. Move the hiring policy closer to your point of view and now you are madder about it??

Dave Roberts wrote:Here is a page of other organization policies including NAMB. If you note in the last item that there are "exempt" and "non-exempt" positions, this is where the application is and is not made to the BFM2K and other requirements.

Dave, are you sure they are using the terms to mean exempt from being SBC/BFM2, etc? Exempt and non-exempt in regard to employment usually mean an employee's relationship to the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Nonexempt employees are entitled to overtime pay. Exempt employees are not. I pulled up two job descriptions on the NAMB website -- Video Producer/Digital Asset Manager and Videographer/Editor. The fact that the job description has a line that tells whether the job is "exempt/nonexempt" and another that tells whether "Southern Baptist Required" suggests to me that exempt/nonexempt is used in the normal meaning that any prospective employee would expect of it.

Dave Roberts wrote:Here is a page of other organization policies including NAMB. If you note in the last item that there are "exempt" and "non-exempt" positions, this is where the application is and is not made to the BFM2K and other requirements.

Dave, are you sure they are using the terms to mean exempt from being SBC/BFM2, etc? Exempt and non-exempt in regard to employment usually mean an employee's relationship to the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Nonexempt employees are entitled to overtime pay. Exempt employees are not. I pulled up two job descriptions on the NAMB website -- Video Producer/Digital Asset Manager and Videographer/Editor. The fact that the job description has a line that tells whether the job is "exempt/nonexempt" and another that tells whether "Southern Baptist Required" suggests to me that exempt/nonexempt is used in the normal meaning that any prospective employee would expect of it.

It's interesting that the Code of Conduct for NAMB does not mention LGBT at all. Here is the link to the Code of Conduct. [url]https://www.namb.net/NAMB_CodeofConduct2017.pdf[/url]You may be correct on the use of the terms, but then non-exempt positions are those not required to conform to all areas required of those in direct ministries.

"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

What I'm getting from a very cursory reading of this thread is that CBF and the NAMB are okay with hiring gays as long as they are eligible for overtime pay. Weird. And that CBF is open to hiring gay missionaries if they are not married. Weirder.

What message is being sent to CBF leadership by the LGBTQ friendly churches who decide they'll pick up their football and go home, so to speak, at the time when the game is beginning to go their way? It will just increase resistance to any additional changes in the policy.

The LGBTQ-friendly churches and individuals advocating for them were highly critical of the fact that some of the more conservative churches might leave CBF if there was a complete reversal of the hiring policy.

It would be nice to see a group of Baptists come together on something instead of splitting up over it.